Australia to Send Refugees to Papua New Guinea

[David48]

Thanks for that BookMan, and in hindsight, I didn't pick up on the 2002 date ...

I'm always ready to admit a mistake.

However, I did read the link provided to the Red Cross Blog and the author ... well who exactly was the Author?

So I directed myself, from that blog to the original BBC News item.

In which the Chief Officer said ... "He said the organisation had never been associated with any religion in accordance with its principles of impartiality and neutrality."

So, while it might be a mute point ... what is Christmas without reference to Christians?

While it's not best to turn this thread into a religious debate as it would the quickest way to have it closed and these posts removed.

I will endeavor to focus on the OP at hand and leave the religious debate for another day and a relevant OP.

That said ... the whole Family here is off to pray at the big Temple by the river tomorrow ... mainly to make merit. I hope it's not raining as I have a DVT and the gf needs to sit in the front seat and I don't fancy playing footsies with the gf's mother in the Space Cab's 1/2 rear bench seat ... I'll be sitting in the tray with the kids ... praying that it doesn't rain and that Buddha realises that we are on the way to make merit and so the truck is not involved in any accident.

Should I not return ... say nice things about me, so in the next life, I don't return as a sick Buffalo ...
.

[samran]

As an extension of this aside - what is Christmas without mention of Christians? I think we can safely say modern consumer culture and mass marketing have already achieved that. But I guess it is more fun to blame it on the muslims I guess. That sells papers.

[BookMan]

Thanks for that BookMan, and in hindsight, I didn't pick up on the 2002 date ...

I'm always ready to admit a mistake.

However, I did read the link provided to the Red Cross Blog and the author ... well who exactly was the Author?

So I directed myself, from that blog to the original BBC News item.

In which the Chief Officer said ... "He said the organisation had never been associated with any religion in accordance with its principles of impartiality and neutrality."

So, while it might be a mute point ... what is Christmas without reference to Christians?

.

Christmas has lost any religious meaning for many people these days in Australia. It is all about Presents, Food, Drink, Holidays.

It makes sense that the Red Cross acknowledges Christmas in the countries where it is celebrated, but I think this acknowledgement could be more of a general participation in the society it is within rather than endorsing or celebrating Christianity. I'm not sure it matters either way.

Let us not forget that they are known as Red Crescent in Muslim countries and a Red Crescent is used as its symbol there. I'm sure there is acknowledgement of Muslim customs and holidays in those countries by the organisation.

[Scott]

Let's stay on topic, please.

[David48]

Let's stay on topic, please.

Thanks for the degree of latitude shown thus far ...

Hopefully we have matched your largesse by not dragging the wider question into the gutter.

[BookMan]

PNG solution 'unravelling': Morrison

Labor's PNG solution was ''unravelling'', said Coalition immigration minster Scott Morrison, after the country’s Prime Minister Peter O'Neill denied the two central elements of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's tough new asylum-seeker policy – that PNG will settle all those determined to be refugees and that none will end up in Australia.

Mr O'Neil, speaking exclusively to Fairfax Media, said he had not agreed to settle all asylum seekers who are found to be refugees after processing on Manus Island and that Australia would need to take back a share of them

''There is no agreement that all genuine refugees will be settled in PNG,'' Mr O'Neill said.

Advertisement

Mr Morrison seized on Mr O’Neill’s comments saying Mr Rudd had ''been caught out again making bold claims that aren’t backed up by the arrangements that are intended to support those claim.

See Full Article Here

[BookMan]

Fly-in smuggle plan

People smugglers are concocting a new product to sell to asylum seekers: flying them into Australia on fake tourist visas to sidestep the harsh policies of both political parties aimed at people arriving on boats. Three groups of Iranian asylum seekers in the Indonesian province of West Java have said smugglers' agents have approached them in recent days with a plan that comes with a money-back guarantee.

For between $US15,000 ($16,350) and $US25,000 per person - three to five times the average boat fare - they will fly them from Indonesia to Thailand or Malaysia, then to Australia on a genuine but altered passport, probably from Europe.

The smugglers say their proposal avoids the Papua New Guinea solution and the opposition's temporary resettlement plan. Iranian Binai Abdu Samad said many people ''already came here [to Indonesia] with illegal passports … now a smuggler is saying, 'We'll prepare for you a tourist visa.'

''When you get to Australia, you cut the passport and go to immigration and say I am a refugee. They can't send you back then,'' he said. ''And you will get a lawyer with the smuggler's help.''

See Article Here

Edited August 18, 2013 by BookMan

[David48]

Fly-in smuggle plan

See Article Here

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr ...

[Scott]

The fly-in method has been in operation for many years. I knew a person who was involved in this little scam many years ago. I don't remember the exact details of how it works, but the smugglers would have a passport made with a name very close to his and with his country of nationality. A picture of the person being smuggled (I assume) was put in the passport. He would then fly to some third country and the passport was handed off to the person being smuggled. It was all very clandestine. He would leave the passport in a newspaper, for example, at a pre-arranged place and someone would pick it up. This was all done in the transit area.

The person would then board a flight to the intended country -- but it would never be the country where the passport was from. So if you were going to Australia, for example, it might be a Canadian or British passport.

In Thailand some Thai immigration personnel were involved in the plan because he would be instructed to go only through certain channels at certain times. At least that was the case for Thailand.

My friend would then return to Thailand. He traveled all over Asia in this matter, but was eventually caught up with all though they did not have the evidence to prosecute him. His days, however, of easy travel are over, since he is now detained by immigration (even in his home country) to make sure he is actually who he says he is. He is on a blacklist of some sort.

This was quite a few years ago, so it's not new.

[samran]

And this simply all proves my earlier points. People are innovative. Stop one thing, and they'll find something else.

This is pure economics at work. Prohibit one thing, and a black market in something else arises.

The only real solution is for the Australian government is to provide a better product than the people smugglers. Unfortunately, all that some can muster are three word slogans.

[David48]

The only real solution is for the Australian government is to provide a better deterrent ... to continue to try and stop the current stream of asylum seekers arriving by boat, reduce or remove their avenue to endless appeals and to become a less appealing destination.

[samran]

Yes, the fire and brimstone approach to public policy. Works well in Saudi Arabia

Agree with making Australia a less appealing destination, but that would also require lowering out standard of living by about 80% and ripping up rule of law.

Being a magnet for refugees - the ultimate first world problem I guess.

[simple1]

The only real solution is for the Australian government is to provide a better deterrent ... to continue to try and stop the current stream of asylum seekers arriving by boat, reduce or remove their avenue to endless appeals and to become a less appealing destination.

David, if an elected government decided to close down the Refugee Review Tribunial, the asylum seekers/refugees would still have access to the High Court. This process was previously put in place and the High Court was overwhelmed; it's not a workable solution.

The "race to the bottom" is now becoming rediculous e.g. a statement from Labor "Failed refugees from countries, such as Iran which refuses to accept involuntary returns, would be left on the Christmas Island indefinitely". Indefinate detention is in breach of international law.

EDIT: A little know fact is indefinate detention legislation was passed into Australian law in 1994 for Vietnamese, Chinese, and Cambodian refugees. As far as I know Australia is the only country that has this legislation in place for asylum seekers/refugees who have not been assessed as a national security threat. I would call this legislation cruel and unusual punishment, but do not know if it was ever exercised.

[Sing_Sling]

A little know fact is indefinate detention legislation was passed into Australian law in 1994 for Vietnamese, Chinese, and Cambodian refugees. As far as I know Australia is the only country that has this legislation in place for asylum seekers/refugees who have not been assessed as a national security threat. I would call this legislation cruel and unusual punishment, but do not know if it was ever exercised.

Why is this not surprising, given the racist past, present and clearly future.

Odd for a country based largely on migration

Edited August 18, 2013 by Scott

[samran]

A little know fact is indefinate detention legislation was passed into Australian law in 1994 for Vietnamese, Chinese, and Cambodian refugees. As far as I know Australia is the only country that has this legislation in place for asylum seekers/refugees who have not been assessed as a national security threat. I would call this legislation cruel and unusual punishment, but do not know if it was ever exercised.

Why is this not surprising, given the racist past, present and clearly future.

Odd for a country based largely on migration

...or one who's national holiday is based on the very first unauthorised boat arrival....

[Credo]

Indefinite detention on Christmas Island? Isn't that sort of the Australian version of Gitmo?

[samran]

Indefinite detention on Christmas Island? Isn't that sort of the Australian version of Gitmo?

Not part of Cuba however. We managed to purchase it off the Brits from what I remember back in the 50's.

One interesting aspect about the place is that for a long time the local residents have had a substantial minority of muslim malays' and they speak Bahasa. Would love to go there one day. See how the local muslims who have been there for generations have turned the place into the disaster many have predicted for the rest of OZ .

Edited August 18, 2013 by samran

[BookMan]

Indefinite detention on Christmas Island? Isn't that sort of the Australian version of Gitmo?

Not part of Cuba however. We managed to purchase it off the Brits from what I remember back in the 50's.

One interesting aspect about the place is that for a long time the local residents have had a substantial minority of muslim malays' and they speak Bahasa. Would love to go there one day. See how the local muslims who have been there for generations have turned the place into the disaster many have predicted for the rest of OZ .

Not anymore!

"As of the 2011 Australian census, the estimated population is 2,072.

The ethnic composition is 18.3% Chinese, 22.9% European/Australian, and 9.3% Malay. A 2011 report by the Australian government estimated that religions practised on Christmas Island include Buddhism 75%, Christianity 12%, Islam 10%, and other 3%.^[27] The cuisine of Christmas Island is mostly flown or shipped in."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_Island

[David48]

The only real solution is for the Australian government is to provide a better deterrent ... to continue to try and stop the current stream of asylum seekers arriving by boat, reduce or remove their avenue to endless appeals and to become a less appealing destination.

David, if an elected government decided to close down the Refugee Review Tribunial, the asylum seekers/refugees would still have access to the High Court. This process was previously put in place and the High Court was overwhelmed; it's not a workable solution.

Not directed at you simple1 ... just using your quote.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the government is there to express the will of the majority of the people ... that is how they develop their policies in the first place and thus elected.

So the Government enacts legislation and the Courts rule on that legislation.

If the Government wanted to remove the right of appeal ... at all levels, they have a right to do so?

[simple1]

The only real solution is for the Australian government is to provide a better deterrent ... to continue to try and stop the current stream of asylum seekers arriving by boat, reduce or remove their avenue to endless appeals and to become a less appealing destination.

David, if an elected government decided to close down the Refugee Review Tribunial, the asylum seekers/refugees would still have access to the High Court. This process was previously put in place and the High Court was overwhelmed; it's not a workable solution.

Not directed at you simple1 ... just using your quote.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the government is there to express the will of the majority of the people ... that is how they develop their policies in the first place and thus elected.

So the Government enacts legislation and the Courts rule on that legislation.

If the Government wanted to remove the right of appeal ... at all levels, they have a right to do so?

Not a lawyer, could be wrong, but I believe the government does not have the sole right, otherwise their would be no checks and balance. As I understand government decisions can be subject to appeal to & review by the High Court and can be rejected. e.g. in the case of the "Malaysian solution".

From an article reviewing these issues "The High Court has a guaranteed jurisdiction to review federal government decisions for what is known as jurisdictional error"

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/election-2013/coalition-asylum-policy-facing-legal-turn-back/story-fn9qr68y-1226698239590

[BookMan]

The government can enact legislation as long as it is within the law.

It can also change the law to enact legislation

[samran]

If government enacted laws to reflect the will of the people without those laws being well considered and absent from the principals of independent due process, gawd help us. We'd be run by violent mobs.

[Sing_Sling]

If government enacted laws to reflect the will of the people without those laws being well considered and absent from the principals of independent due process, gawd help us. We'd be run by violent mobs.

As opposed to being run by inept self-aggrandizing cretins?

[ravip]

The perilous journey that most of these refugees undertake has more to do with seeking a soft welfare state like Australia to cater for their economic needs than it has to do with fleeing some perceived political oppression they suffer in their homelands.

I'm not exactly pro Rudd, but this policy may just work to slow the flood of boats. Papua New Guinea is a signatory to the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, and is therefore a safe haven, even if life there is not as cosy as it is in Ozz.

As usual, the bleeding hearts are crying "unfair" as loud as they can, but the silent majority of Aussies think it is an idea worth pursuing.

Spot on!

In Canada, they were letting in so called Sri Lankan Refuges by the thousands. They were given generous welfare benefits. Shortly after having their refugee status approved and Canada passports issued guess what thousands of these refugees did, used the welfare money to have a holiday in Sri Lanka. Australia for too long has had a soft left driven refugee agenda, it's about time something concrete was done about the issue. So long as they stick to their guns and don't cave to the vocal minority Australia will see the boat people problem disappear in a matter of months. The only people dis-advantaged by the PNG solution is the people smugglers

Majority of these people are 'Economic' refugees.

If an unbiased and accurate investigation is done, the real reason for claiming this 'refugee status' will be easily identified and proven.

Listening to their stories and tainting their countries black is very unfair - this will be proven in the future, maybe in another 5 -15 years time. History will repeat itself for sure. It always help to know the history of the countries these 'refugees' originate to understand this complicated issue.

Edit - Maybe the 'PNG decision' was taken with a very good and valid reason.

Edited August 18, 2013 by ravip

[samran]

If government enacted laws to reflect the will of the people without those laws being well considered and absent from the principals of independent due process, gawd help us. We'd be run by violent mobs.

As opposed to being run by inept self-aggrandizing cretins?

Cretins who are prevented from doing too much harm... Checks and balances and all those good things.

The opposite is, well, Thailand towing people out to sea to drown, and the two yearly drug crackdowns with collateral damage.

[ravip]

The perilous journey that most of these refugees undertake has more to do with seeking a soft welfare state like Australia to cater for their economic needs than it has to do with fleeing some perceived political oppression they suffer in their homelands.

I'm not exactly pro Rudd, but this policy may just work to slow the flood of boats. Papua New Guinea is a signatory to the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, and is therefore a safe haven, even if life there is not as cosy as it is in Ozz.

As usual, the bleeding hearts are crying "unfair" as loud as they can, but the silent majority of Aussies think it is an idea worth pursuing.

Spot on!

In Canada, they were letting in so called Sri Lankan Refuges by the thousands. They were given generous welfare benefits. Shortly after having their refugee status approved and Canada passports issued guess what thousands of these refugees did, used the welfare money to have a holiday in Sri Lanka. Australia for too long has had a soft left driven refugee agenda, it's about time something concrete was done about the issue. So long as they stick to their guns and don't cave to the vocal minority Australia will see the boat people problem disappear in a matter of months. The only people dis-advantaged by the PNG solution is the people smugglers

Majority of these people are 'Economic' refugees.

If an unbiased and accurate investigation is done, the real reason for claiming this 'refugee status' will be easily identified and proven.

Listening to their stories and tainting their countries black is very unfair - this will be proven in the future, maybe in another 5 -15 years time. History will repeat itself for sure. It always help to know the history of the countries these 'refugees' originate to understand this complicated issue.

Edit - Maybe the 'PNG decision' was taken with a very good and valid reason.

Here is some reading material that could supplement my earlier post.

Do not take it for it's own worth, but investigate...

[simple1]

The perilous journey that most of these refugees undertake has more to do with seeking a soft welfare state like Australia to cater for their economic needs than it has to do with fleeing some perceived political oppression they suffer in their homelands.

I'm not exactly pro Rudd, but this policy may just work to slow the flood of boats. Papua New Guinea is a signatory to the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, and is therefore a safe haven, even if life there is not as cosy as it is in Ozz.

As usual, the bleeding hearts are crying "unfair" as loud as they can, but the silent majority of Aussies think it is an idea worth pursuing.

Spot on!

In Canada, they were letting in so called Sri Lankan Refuges by the thousands. They were given generous welfare benefits. Shortly after having their refugee status approved and Canada passports issued guess what thousands of these refugees did, used the welfare money to have a holiday in Sri Lanka. Australia for too long has had a soft left driven refugee agenda, it's about time something concrete was done about the issue. So long as they stick to their guns and don't cave to the vocal minority Australia will see the boat people problem disappear in a matter of months. The only people dis-advantaged by the PNG solution is the people smugglers

Majority of these people are 'Economic' refugees.

If an unbiased and accurate investigation is done, the real reason for claiming this 'refugee status' will be easily identified and proven.

Listening to their stories and tainting their countries black is very unfair - this will be proven in the future, maybe in another 5 -15 years time. History will repeat itself for sure. It always help to know the history of the countries these 'refugees' originate to understand this complicated issue.

Edit - Maybe the 'PNG decision' was taken with a very good and valid reason.

Here is some reading material that could supplement my earlier post.

Do not take it for it's own worth, but investigate...

What has the investigation & allegations of Sri Lanka Buddhist army war crimes against Tamil Hindus in tandem with denial by the government, got to do with this debate?

EDIT: The article is based upon Sri Lanka government propaganda. BTW most of the Sri Lanka Tamils who were identified as economic refugees attempting entry to Australia have already been returned to Sri Lanka.

Edited August 18, 2013 by simple1

[Sing_Sling]

We talk about economic refugees as though that is a new thing, a terrible thing, an unfair thing . . . for the 'invaded' country.

It isn't and wasn't. It has always been the norm and will always be as long as there is income disparity between countries/regions.

Is it now different because the economic migrants/refugees are not white anymore?

[samran]

We talk about economic refugees as though that is a new thing, a terrible thing, an unfair thing . . . for the 'invaded' country.

It isn't and wasn't. It has always been the norm and will always be as long as there is income disparity between countries/regions.

Is it now different because the economic migrants/refugees are not white anymore?

People will be shaking their heads vigourouly in disagreement. No, no, not me!

[simple1]

We talk about economic refugees as though that is a new thing, a terrible thing, an unfair thing . . . for the 'invaded' country.

It isn't and wasn't. It has always been the norm and will always be as long as there is income disparity between countries/regions.

Is it now different because the economic migrants/refugees are not white anymore?

Is it now different because the economic migrants/refugees are not white anymore? Obviously their is bias within the population, but from a government perspective I don't believe so.

I twice entered Australia as a £10 migrant. Once as a child (returned to UK one year later - mother did not like Australia), second time on my own when I was 16 and mainly worked on farms & seismic oil exploration. In those days Australia was screaming out for additional labour. Now their is generally no economic need for unskilled migrant labour, migrants are generally permitted to enter based upon identified skills shortages - point system - that vary from time to time. Of course their are (456 working visas), but I used to know people in the IT industry that after 4 years were able to convert to permanent residency that included their wife & children.

I have nothing against asylum seekers/refugees, but do understand the concern when they are assessed as arriving without a visa, for purely economic reasons. As we know they are in the minority; less than 10%?

Edited August 19, 2013 by simple1